Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Value Partners


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a procedural keep per. There should be no barrier to immediately re-nominating this article, but it should be nominated for a valid criteria, so the discussion can be focused properly. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Southwest Value Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cyber attacks on network originating with information most prominent on wikipedia. Minor, non-notable article of little value to public. Please help us enhance security. Account2900 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Account2900 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy keep Not a valid basis for deletion. This AfD is this editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only information here that could conceivable be   of any special help to cyberattackers is the link to the firms website, From a comment there, I gather some part of thesite is not secure, but I don't see why they need to remove the article to fix that.  DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy/Snow keep - Nom likely has a COI, as well as the nom being SPA. Subject of article is notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the nominator makes any bones about being an employee, if not a senior employee, of the company so let's not keep throwing the COI/SPA tags around and deal with this on merits. They obviously have concerns which need to be replied to, not slinging tags at them. Nthep (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The information being used is beyond the website - specifically names from old newspaper articles otherwise difficult to find. When trying to trim the article to exclude this, it keeps getting added back in. I am an employee - but the conflict is easily and harmlessly disclosed. Does not detract from merit. Southwest Value Partners, as a private enterprise, absolutely does not meet Wikipedia's qualifications of notable. Please help close this loop, have some perspective from the other side, and help in eliminating this article. Anybody can pop up here, call our offices claiming to be the names, and create time consuming work for our employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

*Delete. Non-notable. Agree with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtolo (talk • contribs)
 * Moreover, I'd like to point out that this information is intentionally left off of our website, as we're taking these steps not only for Wikipedia, but all mentions of the firm. You'll find similar removal of content via San Diego Union Tribune, nationwide Biz Journal Outlets, and all generally available publications. Wikipedia is a very prominent website, giving undue information to malactors. We love wikipedia and everything they do, but in this case would be grateful for privacy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete but not on the basis of this nom. Based on my search (admittedly not in great detail) I can't find much that would support inclusion in terms of in depth coverage and I think the keeps are largely motivated by this nomination being wildly outside of policy/norms (and I agree it's a bad nomination.) If I'd come across this myself without having seen this nom, I'd probably have considered AFD as well. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't come to a full opinion on this, but I do think there are serious notability concerns here. Could you address why you believe the subject of this article is notable?  I'm wondering if you considered the nominator's contention that the subject of this article is non-notable when submitting your !votes? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input Chrissymad and above. Please let me know if there is a way I can improve my request to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a way for me to put in a vote to delete as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * By nominating an article for deletion, you are already indicating that you wish for it to be deleted. No need to vote again. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Natureium, that makes sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've struck out the remarks from a sock. The nominator must have felt one account wasn't enough and I'll block them as well, since obviously WP:NOTHERE--their purpose is not to improve our beautiful project. What they do want, I don't know, cause I can't figure out what they're saying. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the reliable sources already in the article, I found a 1997 Wall Street Journal article. The nominator's concern seems to be that the article gives the names of the co-founders, but this information is present in news sources (I also found this article in Arizona Jewish Life but it did not seem worth adding to the article) and is encyclopedically relevant, and I am afraid I do not understand why stating this information should be detrimental to the company. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment To be a bit of a contrarian it feels like sometimes Wikipedia takes too much pride in its contrarian attitudes. "Oh you want your business to have a page? We'll show you DELETE." "Don't want your business to have a page? Too bad, keep!" That said looking at the information here, I agree with Yngvadottir that the 1997 WSJ article is significant coverage from a reliable independent secondary source. I disagree that any of the remaining citations (minus the Orlando Business Journal which I can't access) are the kind that establish notability for an NCORP article. Tucson Citizen is about Carver not the company while the AZ Jewish Life is about Seldin not the company. Sentinel, Tennessean, and Nashville Business Journal are WP:ROUTINE real estate transactions of the kind we do not generally accept for establishing notability even while they are RS for the facts that they cover. Given the long history of the firm I'm reluctant to say given the basic level research I've done that there isn't a second source covering the company in significant detail but at that level of effort I haven't found it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I was reminded that I had been asked to comment again. I am, frankly, uncertain about actual notability. But I think we might more reasonably have that discussed in a subsequent discussion, uninfluenced by the initial  delete reason. This could well be closed non-consensus, but I think we would do better to close as a keep (with a note that there is no reason not to renominate), in order to give an unambiguous response to the original reason.  DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.